Pakistan’s rejection of the CBS News report about Iranian aircraft at Nur Khan Airbase has pushed Islamabad’s mediation role into the centre of a manufactured controversy, with officials and analysts arguing that ordinary ceasefire logistics are being distorted to cast doubt on a country that has kept a difficult US-Iran diplomatic channel open when others could not.
The Foreign Office on Tuesday “categorically” rejected the CBS report as “misleading and sensationalized,” saying such narratives appeared aimed at undermining efforts for regional stability and peace. The report by American news outlet had alleged that Pakistan, while positioning itself as a diplomatic conduit between Iran and the United States, had quietly allowed Iranian military aircraft to park on its airfields, “potentially shielding them from American airstrikes,” citing unnamed US officials with knowledge of the matter.
Islamabad has not denied the temporary presence of Iranian aircraft. Its case is narrower and much stronger: the aircraft arrived after the ceasefire, in connection with the Islamabad talks, and were part of a logistics chain used by both sides. According to the Foreign Office, aircraft from Iran and the United States arrived in Pakistan to facilitate the movement of diplomatic personnel, security teams and administrative staff, with some aircraft and support personnel remaining temporarily in anticipation of subsequent engagement.
Islamabad has not denied the temporary presence of Iranian aircraft. Its case is narrower and much stronger: the aircraft arrived after the ceasefire, in connection with the Islamabad talks, and were part of a logistics chain used by both sides.
“The Iranian aircraft currently parked in Pakistan arrived during the ceasefire period and bear no linkage whatsoever to any military contingency or preservation arrangement,” the Foreign Office said, adding that claims suggesting otherwise were “speculative, misleading, and entirely detached from the factual context.”
Islamabad maintains that both US and Iranian aircraft had landed in Pakistan to facilitate the movement of diplomats and security personnel for peace talks, and that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s later visits were carried out under the same logistical arrangements.
That distinction sits at the heart of Pakistan’s rebuttal. Aircraft arriving during combat to evade strikes would carry one meaning. Aircraft arriving after a ceasefire, when delegations, security teams and technical staff from both adversaries were moving through a host country, carries another. The CBS story rests heavily on anonymous US officials and the phrase “potentially shielding,” which signals suspicion, not proof. Its own report said US Central Command referred CBS to Afghan and Pakistani officials for comment. Furthermore, it also quoted a senior Pakistan official rejecting the claims involving Nur Khan Air Base, with a pretty straightforward logic, “Nur Khan base is right in the heart of [the] city, a large fleet of aircrafts parked there can’t be hidden from [the] public eye.”
The counter-narrative has also been pushed by Pakistani journalists familiar with the Islamabad talks. Leading journalist Hamid Mir wrote on X that Iranian aircraft carrying a large negotiating team arrived “after the ceasefire and not during the active conflict,” adding that after the first round, many US and Iranian aircraft were parked at Nur Khan because security and technical staff from both sides remained present in anticipation of another round. He said Iranian technical staff and a few aircraft stayed back because a second round was expected in Islamabad, and concluded: “Your story is not based on facts. Right now there are no Iranian aircrafts in Rawalpindi.”
Even outside Pakistan, the chain of events did not go unnoticed. Shashank Joshi, defence editor for The Economist, described the CBS detail as “fascinating,” before underlining that the movement was “POST ceasefire,” quoting the report’s own formulation that Tehran sent multiple aircraft to Nur Khan days after President Trump announced the ceasefire.
The political damage in Washington, however, is not imaginary. Already, the much-talked-about ceasefire between Iran and the US, achieved painstakingly by Pakistan, appears increasingly fragile, with President Donald Trump saying it was on “massive life support.”
US Senator Lindsey Graham has caused a major political storm on social media as he called for “a complete reevaluation” of Pakistan’s mediator role and said he “would not be shocked” if the CBS report proved accurate.
Graham reportedly went further during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held on Monday while questioning Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen Dan Caine, saying: “I do not trust Pakistan as far as I can throw. When it comes to Pakistan and China, enough already.”
A CNN report has gone further, claiming that some Trump administration officials believed Pakistan had been giving Washington “a more positive version of the Iranian position” than reality warranted, while questioning whether Islamabad was conveying Trump’s “displeasure” strongly enough to Tehran.
All this, while Pakistan maintains that Islamabad had been as direct with both parties as a neutral arbiter could be, because, in the words of a security official, mediation required impartiality rather than “earning brownie points or headline diplomacy.”
From the looks of it, Washington does not merely want a mediator. It wants a messenger who will carry its anger in the required tone. Pakistan, however, cannot be an honest facilitator if it becomes an amplifier of one side’s fury. Mediation is not stenography for power. It requires enough trust from both parties to keep them in the room. If Islamabad is too close to Tehran, Washington objects. If it leans too hard toward Washington, Tehran walks away. That is the narrow bridge Pakistan is trying to cross.
Sources in Islamabad see the controversy as an uncomfortable replay of the post-9/11 pattern, when Pakistan’s cooperation was often treated as insufficient, its sacrifices discounted, and its choices viewed through suspicion rather than strategic necessity. Their argument is that Pakistan is again being asked to help manage a conflict it did not start, only to be judged by anonymous briefings once diplomacy becomes difficult.
Naseem Khan Achakzai, executive director of the Center for Regional Strategy and Global Affairs at University of Lahore, put the criticism more sharply: “One story. Zero named sources. A US military that wouldn’t confirm it. A denial with geographic logic. And timing that is anything but coincidental.” His conclusion was blunter still: “This is not journalism about Pakistan. It is journalism aimed at Pakistan.”
The CBS report may yet be defended by its authors as tough accountability journalism. Fair enough. Pakistan should be scrutinised. Every state should be. But scrutiny requires evidence, context and proportionality. Here, the report appears to have taken a ceasefire-era logistical fact and dressed it in the language of covert protection. It relied on unnamed officials, conceded timing after the ceasefire, and offered no public confirmation from the US military that Pakistan had provided Iran with a preservation arrangement. Islamabad’s denial, by contrast, offered chronology, reciprocity and purpose.
The country’s answer should not be panic or retreat. Pakistan has done what responsible states do when war threatens their neighbourhood: it has kept a channel open. The task now is to defend that channel with facts, composure and speed. Pakistan should not abandon mediation because a story has been fired at it. It should recognise the battlefield for what it is. In modern war, the runway, the leak, the headline and the insinuation all travel together.
The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. Shetweets@DureAkram.